DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 26, 2026, entered by the RCE submitted on April 09, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15 and 20 have been amended.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 directed to a judicial exception without significantly more are maintained in view of amendments to the claims and further explained hereinafter.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 1, 8 and 15 are maintained in view of
the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims and further explained hereinafter.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 6 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 6 recites the limitations:
validating product metadata.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the validating step, a human can read product metadata information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to validate the product metadata. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidate list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (5) and (8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The metadata model and policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2), (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (1), (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidate list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (5) and (8) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2), (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to define and store product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product, pull product dependency metadata from the product metadata and provide a dependency matrix based on the product metadata. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (1), (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product with no restriction on how the performing, updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the performing, updating and providing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 7 recites the limitations:
performing prerequisite checks during invocation of actions.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the performing prerequisite checks step, a human can read prerequisite information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to perform perquisite checks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidate list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (5) and (8) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The metadata model and the dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2), (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (1), (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidate list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (5) and (8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The metadata model and the dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements (2), (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to define and store product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product, pull product dependency metadata from the product metadata, and provide a dependency matrix based on the product metadata. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (1), (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product with no restriction on how the performing, updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the performing, updating and providing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 13 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 13 recites the limitations:
validating product metadata
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the validating step, a human can read product metadata information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to validate the product metadata. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, the metadata model, and the policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2), (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2), (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to define and store product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product, pull product dependency metadata from the product metadata, and provide a dependency matrix based on the product metadata. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product with no restriction on how the performing, updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the performing, updating and providing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 14 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 14 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 14 recites the limitations:
performing prerequisite checks during invocation of actions.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the performing prerequisite checks step, a human can read prerequisite information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to perform perquisite checks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, the metadata model and the dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2), (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center comprising:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2), (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to define and store product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product, pull product dependency metadata from the product metadata, and provide a dependency matrix based on the product metadata. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product with no restriction on how the performing, updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the performing, updating and providing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 20 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 20 recites the limitations:
performing prerequisite checks during invocation of actions.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the performing prerequisite checks step, a human can read prerequisite information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to perform perquisite checks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, the metadata model and the dependency policy management service are used as tools to perform the defining, pulling, providing and updating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2), (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
providing a dependency matrix […], based on the product dependency metadata;
by a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
updating the dependency matrix as the product dependency metadata is received; and
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
by a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
The additional element (1), (5) and (8) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2), (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to define and store product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product, pull product dependency metadata from the product metadata, and provide a dependency matrix based on the product metadata. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of performing dependency compliance of products, updating the dependency matrix and providing for actions on the product with no restriction on how the performing, updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the performing, updating and providing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140149568 (hereinafter “Kruempelmann”) in view of US 8347263 (hereinafter “Offer”), and and further in view of US 20150355985 (hereinafter “Holtz”).
As per Claim 1, Kruempelmann discloses:
A computer-implementable method for performing dependency compliance of products running on devices of a data center (Figure 2: 222) comprising:
providing a dependency matrix […], based on […] (Paragraph [0021], “The structure of the dependency matrix can vary based on the particular implementation, but the dependency matrix can contain information about the alert itself, the agent that reported the alert and timing information associated with the alert [providing a dependency matrix […], based on […]] (emphasis added).”;
updating the dependency matrix as […] is received (Paragraph [0021], The update engine 610 can be used to updating a dependency matrix 630 based on customer input of a rule set associated with the alerts. The query engine 620 can access the dependency matrix 630 and use a received alert as a key to search for and determine dependencies associated with the alert [updating the dependency matrix as […] is received] (emphasis added).”; and
Kruempelmann discloses “dependency matrix”, but Kruempelmann does not explicitly disclose:
product metadata;
the product dependency metadata;
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata;
[…] a metadata model using a consolidated list, […];
providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.
However, Offer discloses:
product metadata (col.8 lines 56-61, “In various embodiments, Installation Parser 195 is configured to identify some or all of the installation metadata in an installation package (or file family) and to store this installation metadata in Resource Repository 130 in association with the executable application [product metadata] (emphasis added).”;
the product dependency metadata (col.12 lines 35-38, “Further, the application environment specification may include data specifying a dependency, a version range, a specific version, desired features, or any other version related information discussed herein [ the product dependency metadata] (emphasis added).”;
defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product (col.8 lines 56-61, “In various embodiments, Installation Parser 195 is configured to identify some or all of the installation metadata in an installation package (or file family) and to store this installation metadata in Resource Repository 130 in association with the executable application [defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product] (emphasis added).”;
pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata (col.3 lines 23-26, “A computing device receives an installation package for an executable application, extracts installation metadata from the installation package, and stores the extracted installation metadata in the repository (emphasis added).”; col.7 lines 58-63, “Installation metadata may comprise, for example, the names of installation files, names and destinations of files to be installed, file path information, configuration option logic, feature logic, version information, operating system requirements/dependencies, hardware requirements/dependencies, registry keys, installation package dependencies [...] (emphasis added).”; col.8 lines 56-61, “In various embodiments, Installation Parser 195 is configured to identify some or all of the installation metadata in an installation package (or file family) and to store this installation metadata in Resource Repository 130 in association with the executable application [pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata] (emphasis added).”;
[…] a metadata model […] (col.22, lines 55-60, “For example, in alternative embodiments, the information discussed herein as being included in File Family Metadata 210, Provenance Metadata 220, and/or Package Metadata 230 may all be included in the File Metadata 240 in a flat data structure, a relational database, an object oriented database, […] [[…] a metadata model […]] (emphasis added).”,
providing for actions on the product based on [...] (col.11 lines 9-16, “For example, in some embodiments, Provisioning Server 320 is configured to receive a request for execution of a particular executable application, to provision an application specific runtime environment for the requested executable application according to an associated application environment specification, and to execute the executable application in the provisioned application specific runtime environment (emphasis added).”; col.14 lines 8-10, “In some embodiments, Provisioning Server 320 is configured to use installation metadata to install an executable application on a plurality of different operating system [providing for actions on the product based on […] ] (emphasis added).”.
Kruempelmann is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding monitoring alerts using a dependency matrix in a computer landscape environment. Offer is also within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding executing and/or provisioning an application in an application specific runtime environment. Thus, Kruempelmann and Offer are both analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Offer into the teaching of Kruempelmann to include “product metadata; the product dependency metadata; defining and storing product metadata for lifecycle prerequisites of a product; pulling product dependency metadata from the product metadata; […] a metadata model […], providing for actions on the product based on the dependency matrix.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include the stored installation metadata to help identify dependency matrix related to the software (Offer, col.8 lines 65-67).
The combination of Kruempelmann and Offer does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a consolidated list, […];
However, Holtz discloses:
[…] a consolidated list, […] (Paragraph [0049], “In an aspect of the disclosure, the framework entry 420 may include a dependency data structure 428 used by a registering recovery consumer to register a dependency association with one more or more other recovery consumers. […] Illustratively, multiple dependency associations may be registered in a list of dependency data structures 428a-n [[…] a consolidated list, […]] (emphasis added).”;
Holtz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a recovery consumer framework to efficient use of recovery information to recover a storage system. Thus, Holtz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Holtz into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann and Offer to include “[…] a consolidated list, […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable efficient retrieving product metadata within the system (Holtz, [Abstract]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Kruempelmann further disclose:
wherein the steps are performed on a cloud service or web service ([Abstract], “In a landscape environment, embodiments disclosed herein aggregate alerts into a root alert to reduce the overall alerts being analyzed (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0001], “One example of a landscape is a database server, a J2EE server, and a web server. Other examples include an Enterprise Resource Planning ("ERP") server, a Customer Relationship Management ("CRM") server, and a Web Portal server, where the Web Portal allows users to access the other servers over the Web. [wherein the steps are performed on a cloud service or web service] (emphasis added).”.
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Kruempelmann and Offer does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a consolidated list includes product dependency data.
However, Holtz discloses:
wherein a consolidated list includes product dependency data (Paragraph [0049], “Illustratively, multiple dependency associations may be registered in a list of dependency data structures 428a-n [wherein a consolidated list includes product dependency data] (emphasis added).”.
Holtz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a recovery consumer framework to efficient use of recovery information to recover a storage system. Thus, Holtz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Holtz into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann and Offer to include “wherein a consolidated list includes product dependency data.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable efficient retrieving product metadata within the system (Holtz, [Abstract]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Kruempelmann and Offer discloses “product metadata” and Kruempelmann further discloses:
validating […] ([Abstract], “As a result, a dependency matrix can be checked to determine if a related alert has occurred that is associated with the first alert. [validating product metadata] (emphasis added).”.
The combination of Kruempelmann and Offer does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS).
However, Holtz discloses:
[…] a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS) (Paragraph [0030], “The storage operation system 300 may include software components ( e.g., modules), such as one or more recovery consumers 31 0a-n which may implement procedures and techniques described herein.[…] To that end, the storage operating system 300 may also include a recovery framework 400 for efficiently coordinating the recovery consumers in response to the failure event. Additionally, the recovery framework 400 may provide a recovery framework application programming interface (API) to support coordination among the recovery consumers (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0050], Accordingly, a dependency rule set may be extracted from the resource table and used to automatically generate the dependency data structures of the recovery framework [[…] a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS)] (emphasis added).”.
Holtz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a recovery consumer framework to efficient use of recovery information to recover a storage system. Thus, Holtz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Holtz into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann and Offer to include “[…] a policy compliance enforcer residing on a dependency policy management service (DPMS)” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable efficient retrieving product metadata within the system (Holtz, [Abstract]).
Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are system claims corresponding to the computer-implementable method claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6.
Claims 15, 16 and 19 are non-transitory, computer readable storage medium claims corresponding to the computer-implementable method claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 2 and 5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 15, 16 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1, 2 and 5.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann in view of Offer and Holtz as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 9894147 (hereinafter “Zalpuri”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Kruempelmann, Offer and Holtz does not explicitly disclose:
wherein lifecycle prerequisites include installation of products in devices, upgrading of products, and uninstallation of products in devices.
However, Zalpuri discloses:
wherein lifecycle prerequisites include installation of products in devices, upgrading of products, and uninstallation of products in devices (col.2 lines 34-37, “In various embodiments, the management function comprises installing software, uninstalling software, upgrading software, determining software status, or any other appropriate management function [wherein lifecycle prerequisites include installation of products in devices, upgrading of products, and uninstallation of products in devices] (emphasis added).”.
Zalpuri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for a cluster application manager. Thus, Zalpuri is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zalpuri into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann, Offer and Holtz to include “wherein lifecycle prerequisites include installation of products in devices, upgrading of products, and uninstallation of products in devices.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency of applications manager to manage a large number of cluster applications automatically (Zalpuri, col.2 lines 65-67).
Claim 10 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 3.
Claim 17 is non-transitory, computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann in view of Offer and Holtz as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 9678769 (hereinafter “Scott”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Kruempelmann and Offer discloses “product metadata”, but the combination of Kruempelmann, Offer and Holtz does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the product metadata is parsed based on a request from the data center.
However, Scott discloses:
[…] is parsed based on a request from the data center (col.2 lines 64-67, “Upon receiving a request to one of the APIs, the Web services layer can parse or otherwise analyze the request to determine the steps or actions needed to act on or process the call (emphasis added).”; col.3 lines 28-31, “API servers, as well as the persistent data store, can be spread across multiple data centers in a region, for example, such that the servers are resilient to single data center failures [[…] is parsed based on a request from the data center] (emphasis added).”.
Scott is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method to manage volumes in a shared computing environment. Thus, Scott is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Scott into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann, Offer and Holtz to include “wherein the product metadata is parsed based on a request from the data center.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the system efficiency by adding the ability to parse the product metadata from request.
Claim 11 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 4.
Claim 18 is non-transitory, computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 4.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann in view of Offer and Holtz as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 6442754 (hereinafter “Curtis”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Kruempelmann and Offer does not explicitly disclose:
performing prerequisite checks by a dependency policy management service (DPMS) during invocation of actions.
However, Holtz discloses:
[…] a dependency policy management service (DPMS) […] (Paragraph [0030], “To that end, the storage operating system 300 may also include a recovery framework 400 for efficiently coordinating the recovery consumers in response to the failure event. Additionally, the recovery framework 400 may provide a recovery framework application programming interface (API) to support coordination among the recovery consumers (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0050], Accordingly, a dependency rule set may be extracted from the resource table and used to automatically generate the dependency data structures of the recovery framework [[…] a dependency policy management service (DPMS) […]] (emphasis added).”.
Holtz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a recovery consumer framework to efficient use of recovery information to recover a storage system. Thus, Holtz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Holtz into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann and Offer to include “[…] a dependency policy management service (DPMS) […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable efficient retrieving product metadata within the system (Holtz, [Abstract]).
The combination of Kruempelmann, Offer and Holtz does not explicitly disclose:
performing prerequisite checks […] during invocation of actions.
However, Curtis discloses:
performing prerequisite checks […] during invocation of actions (col.8 lines 22-26, “Other functions of the tool kit include […] ix) providing dependency checking of prerequisite programs during both install and uninstall [performing prerequisite checks […] during invocation of actions] (emphasis added).”.
Curtis is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for installing and uninstalling programs and checking dependencies of installed components. Thus, Curtis is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Curtis into the combined teachings of Kruempelmann, Offer and Hotlz to include “performing prerequisite checks […] during invocation of actions” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to adding prerequire checking feature to improve the installing or uninstalling process.
Claim 14 is system claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 7.
Claim 20 is non-transitory, computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implementable method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 have been fully considered but theyare not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argues:
a) Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite the following features (emphasis added) "providing a dependency matrix by a metadata model using a consolidated list, based on the product dependency metadata." Such features are not described or shown by the cited art. Support for the amendment can be found for example in paragraph [0025] of the specification. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are allowable over the cited art, and their respective dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency on allowable base claims.
(See Remarks – page 1.)
Examiner’s response:
a) Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, with respect to Applicant’s assertion that cited art at least fails to disclose, teach or suggestion “providing a dependency matrix by a metadata model using a consolidated list, based on the product dependency metadata." the Examiner respectfully submits that Kruempelmann discloses “providing a dependency matrix […] based on […]” and Offer discloses “the product dependency metadata”, and Offer further discloses “a metadata model” (col.22, lines 55-60, “For example, in alternative embodiments, the information discussed herein as being included in File Family Metadata 210, Provenance Metadata 220, and/or Package Metadata 230 may all be included in the File Metadata 240 in a flat data structure, a relational database, an object oriented database, […] [a metadata model] (emphasis added).”, but the combination of Kruempelmann and Offer does not explicitly disclose “a consolidated list,” Examiner relied upon Holtz for its specific teaching of “a consolidated list” (Paragraph [0049], “In an aspect of the disclosure, the framework entry 420 may include a dependency data structure 428 used by a registering recovery consumer to register a dependency association with one more or more other recovery consumers. […] Illustratively, multiple dependency associations may be registered in a list of dependency data structures 428a-n [a consolidated list] (emphasis added).”;
Note that “Offer” discloses metadata can be included in a relational database or an object oriented database. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that this data structure can be reasonably interpreted “a metadata model”. Thus, the applicant’s arguments is, at best, moot.
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 1, 8, and 15 are proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for more information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights